So this person found a segment of the vote where Ron Paul and Romney didn't have a straight line graph...expanded that out to the total vote...and
was surprised to see the small deviations become greater???

Whoever the fool is who did these graphs is not very good at math.

Plus...do we even need to point out that you can't make a graph showing who got what votes when??? He is showing total votes in the X axis...and
somehow finding who got what vote after each vote was cast.

This is like the people saying that if you take the unreported precincts in Waldo county...find an error rate and apply that to the entire state...Ron
Paul wins.

People confuse themselves with math all the time...but they figure if they can put numbers together in a graph...IT MUST BE TRUE.

This is hilarious OP...thanks for th laugh.

What is truly laughable, Outkast, is your opinion masquerading as an argument. You would be asked to leave any 200 level math class if you attempt to
present an opinion rather than argument.

You state the OPs methods are flawed yet do nothing to prove it. Most lay persons lack the education to critically dissect mathmatical arguments. That
fact has been exploited by propagandists for years as they support assertions with skewed statistics. Lay people depend on analysis of "experts" to
interpret data.

The sad fact is propagandists need no upper level calculus training to impugn arguments if they simply speak with authority and throw in a little
jargon. Just like you. Ha! Now kindly leave the science to scientists and get back to your Psych 101 class.

In nowadays, an idea that a decision to elect the next president would be left to the "common folks", is laughable. Of course it's rigged. It
wouldn't work any other way. Pretty soon you would be getting presidents that put the people before big busyness sponsors...and we can't have that.
Hell no !! But in order for it to work the way it does is to let people think they are the ones who choose. Damn internet is going to spoil
everything...

There is big money in politics...especially in America. Big money means big players. Makes no sense that they would allow you to elect somebody they
can't control, and than hope for the best fate of their multi billion corporation.

Let me predict what is going to happen about all this, not to mention Maine...nothing. Absolutely nothing.

Just deny everything and it will go away...a tested recipe for avoiding naughty public questions. As it worked with Bush...it will work again, and
again.

The far most common arguments against Ron Paul that i have seen are listed and explained below.

That he is a "homophobe" and "racist" which where based on unconfirmed straw-grasping in the first place, and has since been thouroughly debunked
in other threads.

Also that he wants to end the war on drugs, some people obviously does not understand this and think everyone will become a heavy pill-popper or a
"pot-head" overnight if drugs became legal

This concern is understandable due to the heavy media-bias against all forms of drugs persisting
over the last 20 years, that has successfully indoctrinated most people with the viewpoint that all drugs are bad, no matter how beneficial or
harmless they may be in reality. (Like Hemp)

The last thing is his foreign policy, some people does not understand that peace is preferable to war, and insist on attacking other countries
"before they have a chance to attack", to be the "safer policy". Nevermind that no real threat exists prior to any of these attacks, these people
obviously are deluded by the media spin-doctors acting on their employers command based on economic interests.

Hey Neo...I would very much like to help. I'm not sure how much help is this debating issues over ATS. Although fun and educational, has very little
practical purpose in the sense that it changes anything.

My opinion is that these things will not change, unless we as beings change. You can not eradicate corruption. Not with this frame of mind of ours.
When we stop being motivated by the accumulation of material wealth, that is when we will. As long as there is money we will not have corruption free
society, there is always someone who wants it badly.

Money breeds power...power brings...thirst for more power.

Until then...I'm not giving up...I'm just starting to see the big picture. Rigged elections are not the problem...they are only a consequence of our
current social and economic structure. This is where we need to build...build a free human being. Free of desire to hurt/kill, to be richer, to be
stronger, to subdue those who are weaker...

I need this 2012 doom really badly

I think we as a species would benefit from world wide extinction in order to start fresh. This system is so far gone on multiple levels, that
reparation is not possible. At least not peacefully.

The far most common arguments against Ron Paul that i have seen are listed and explained below.

That he is a "homophobe" and "racist" which where based on unconfirmed straw-grasping in the first place, and has since been thouroughly debunked
in other threads.

Also that he wants to end the war on drugs, some people obviously does not understand this and think everyone will become a heavy pill-popper or a
"pot-head" overnight if drugs became legal

This concern is understandable due to the heavy media-bias against all forms of drugs persisting
over the last 20 years, that has successfully indoctrinated most people with the viewpoint that all drugs are bad, no matter how beneficial or
harmless they may be in reality. (Like Hemp)

The last thing is his foreign policy, some people does not understand that peace is preferable to war, and insist on attacking other countries
"before they have a chance to attack", to be the "safer policy". Nevermind that no real threat exists prior to any of these attacks, these people
obviously are deluded by the media spin-doctors acting on their employers command based on economic interests.

Ending the war on drugs

Oh yeah...

One thing reminds from the Zeitgeist (weather you support the film or not)...and that is the fact that this society functions on scarecity (not sure
about the spelling there, meaning shortage of something). It is funny and true.

Nobody wants for oil to be abundant, they couldn't profit from it than. I also heard (not confirmed by a realiable source) that diamonds are being
destroyed, in order to keep the value (read price tag). They don't want renewable sustainable energy sources cos they cant be profited from. It is
true...the system is rigged in such a way that there is always a shortage. And shortage produces value. Abundance produces no profit.

So...scarecity produces wealth to those in power, and poverty to those not in power. And the gap widens.
Gotta love the system.

This is why war on drugs is a must stay...if you would introduce Hemp back to farmers fields...as it was before the WWI, we could almost be free...
(don't stone me for this one...I really like weed)

Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
The Cynical Outkast?.. Why does that sound familiar?...Can you actually debunk UNDENIABLE? If so impress me.

Do you understand what the person with the undeniable mathematical proof is doing?

We don't even have to look at the math to spot his errors...just look at his beginning ASSUMPTIONS.

1. The perpetrators, for the most part, do not alter the votes in low vote count
precincts. It’s too easy to get caught and there are few votes to gain.

Why does he make this assumption...because Ron Paul did well in small precincts and horrible in larger precincts.

But the main point to take out of this is that he already ASSUMES there is fraud and uses that assumption as FACT to go ahead and try to prove fraud
is happening. He is beginning with a false premise. This alone invalidates anything else he does.

He uses some small precincts where he found where Ron Paul and Romney were very close. So he takes this rate and applies it to the entire county.
Now...if that is how elections really worked...anyone could project the winner with only a very very small percentage of the vote counted.

Another major flaw in his assumptions is that votes should be linear in one county based on the rate of a few small precincts in that county. His
reasoning alone is just filled with logical errors. The worst math comes from having illogical premises.

But let's continue to look at his assumptions.

4. Any election can be accurately predicted/ projected after a certain minimum
percentage of precincts from diverse areas in a county have reported its vote
results.

This is flat out false...but this is what he uses for his ENTIRE analysis.

5. In a four candidate Primary where there is a legitimate reason one of the candidates
loses votes in (a) particular precinct(s), the gains will be spread amongst the other 3
candidates in a fairly consistent manner.

6. In a four candidate Primary where there is a legitimate reason one of the candidates
gains votes in (a) particular precinct(s), the losses will be spread amongst the other
3 candidates in a fairly consistent manner.

Where is it said that this is true? He is claiming things as fact that he is just making up at random. There is NOTHING that says that votes gained
should be equally spread out as loses to the other candidates. There is plenty of polling to show this...Newt and Santorum consistently swap votes
back and forth with little effect on Romney and Paul.

7. The vote percentage received for a particular candidate, in general, should not vary
significantly from low vote total precincts to higher vote total precincts. Each
candidate’s vote will obviously vary between precincts. But there is no direct
relationship between total votes cast at a precinct versus vote percentage received
by a particular candidate.

Again...this is a baseless assumption he is using. There are plenty of candidates that do well in rural areas and horrible in urban areas...and vice
versa. And he uses this for his entire analysis. It's just really really sad that some of you people think this makes sense.

Does everyone honestly think that if you do good in small rural areas that you will win the entire state???

He ends these assumptions with this

I believe all of these obvious to the point of being self- evident. Let’s not waste time in this
report debating these.

Do all of you honestly think that you can accurately predict an entire county by using 1/4 of the vote from the smallest and most rural
precincts???

I think you missed the main interesting point, though I agree with you on this occassion that this is in no way undeniable proof. We'll likely never
have undeniable proof, just a series of odd happenings that together make it unlikely - though possible - that the nomination process is fair.

What was interesting about the maths here is that the small precincts were in fact a predictor for Santorum and Gingrich, but not for Paul and Romney.
This could mean that Paul and Romney voters are more closely aligned than we think, and the flip has to do with rural communities vs urban
communities - i.e. a fairly narrow set of ideals determining Romney/Paul votes - or it could mean that votes have been illegally flipped.

I would like to see an analysis of all rural vs urban votes - is Romney taking votes from Paul in Urban areas, and vice versa, with Santorum and
Gingrich being pretty consistent with both areas?

Its also interesting - nothing more at this stage - that in Maine we had a similar trend. Paul winning after 30-40% % of votes, followed by a
complete turnaround in the trend - in fact an almost identical flip.

As soon as I can get m copy of SPSS working I'll do some legitimate statistical analysis, but there are a few major flaws that stand out in his
methodology. First, he is working under the premise that voter fraud is occurring before he has any proof. This can and often does lead to
confirmation bias. Second, a proper statistical analysis is based on randomly selected data. His data is not randomly selected. He specifically
chooses the precincts with the lowest voter turnout and then makes a projection based on that. I bet if he based his projection on randomly selected
precincts it would be close to the actual data, and I plan on showing this in my analysis. Finally, his assumption that we should see similar trends
with Gingrich and Santorum is false. Their appeal in the state was pretty much universal regardless of demographic. This is why they did so well in
the state. Romney tends to have a lot more appeal in urban areas. Thus his higher numbers there. Paul tends to do better in the more rural areas. Thus
his higher numbers there. If you're only looking at precincts with lower voter turnouts, which tend to correspond with more rural areas, then you are
not reflecting Romney's urban appeal in your data. This document is proof of nothing other than this person has no idea how to do a proper analysis
and he has no idea how politics work.

Two completely different things. My conclusion is based on looking at the data. The data shows that Romney does well in area with a higher population
and that Paul does better in areas with lower population. That is not starting with your conclusion and then setting out to find evidence that
supports it. Furthermore, this is only a minor part of my argument. The more important ones are that his analysis has so many flaws in it that
there's no way you could make an accurate conclusion with it and that his premises and conclusions are inherently flawed. If you want to keep
believing for some reason that this is evidence of voter fraud that's fine with me, but it certainly isn't mathematical or undeniable. In fact it is
quite deniable and I don't see any proper use of math at all.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.